I've mentioned this before in an earlier post of mine, and it's an important enough issue to warrant it's own post I think; that video games aren't very challenging anymore.
There was once a time where beating a level of a game, let alone the game itself was really damn hard. It made people cry, get angry, throw things, get depressed, get violent, etc. Games were hard, and when you beat one, you felt proud and accomplished. You'd succeeded in your task and maybe not a whole lot of people you knew could say the same thing.
I'm not talking about Superman 64 hard where it's because the game is just stupid. I'm talking about Contra and any number of other older games that were really challenging to get through.
They were also fun. While they were extremely challenging, part of the fun was the challenge.
Now compare it to Assassin's Creed: Blag Flag, which I did play all the way through, and while it had its points, the game is so repetitive in gameplay it gets really old before you're even halfway through playing the game. It's also way too easy. There aren't really any consequences for doing things wrong, except that you start over at your last check point, but other than that, you can take on dozens of enemies and even though you're only using 18th Century muskets and pistols, they're deadly accurate; and by deadly accurate, I mean they hit your target without misfiring and as long as your target is within range(which is still way too far)and you have the crosshairs on them, you're good to go. Maybe if each mission became more challenging than the last, the games repetitiveness wouldn't be so bad(although, it was pretty bad), the game was really easy. The best thing about that game was the sea battles, and they were the most challenging, at first, before you upgrade your ship into an unstoppable beast(which even then if you get too cocky you can get destroyed).
That being said, I did enjoy a lot of the game, and while that is true, it could have been so much better. Games just walk people through everything they have to do now, and don't even make them figure out what they need to do. Very few games are stimulating intellectually or otherwise. Even the Medal of Honor series, which was not incredibly challenging, but they were fun, is more challenging and requires more thought than most of the Call of Duty games. And I was a Call of Duty fan when it came out, but they haven't really expanded past their model, which is one of the main reasons Call of Duty replaced Medal of Honor as everyone's favorite WWII gaming series; Medal of Honor had gotten old, and they weren't being innovative anymore. There's only so many times people can play the invasion of Normandy without it just looking all the same. That might have been what killed WWII games in general though, was that people just got sick of playing them, and why Call of Duty: Modern Warfare was so popular when it came out, or Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon. Those are other, smaller subjects for another time though.
The point is, games need to actually be challenging again, rather than trying to appeal for the widest audience possible, just so they can make money.
Kinja points out something I have left out thus far; that games have gotten easier, but harder to manage, meaning that while games have gotten easier by a lot, the way we are playing these easier games has become more complex, with more buttons and controls than ever before. And that might be what has replaced the challenge of a difficult game; the challenge of trying to manage yourself with an easy game.
I think maybe this might come to newer solutions to games in the future; making them less complex to manage, but more challenging to play, and having a balance of the old and new. We won't know until the future though, so until then, we must keep hoping and doing what we can to improve the gaming industry ourselves, if that will even work.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Game Design Consoles and Falling Behind the PC
I think that one of the biggest tells, is that the new systems for the consoles, the X-Box One and the Playstation 4, are not much more advanced than their predecessors, the X-Box 360 and the Playstation 3. The graphics and processing weren't improved all that greatly; look on a PC however, and the differences can be astounding. I think one of the best examples is for Grand Theft Auto 5, on the PC vs. the X-Box One. If you look at a car on the PC version, you'll almost think it's a photograph of an actual car, because the graphics are so advanced. If you look at it on a newer system like an X-Box One, you'll already know it's a video game from the graphics.
The thing is, PC's have had all these advantages for years, and while we're not expecting consoles to be that advanced, I'd think that they would be much more improved than what they are. Even Forbes admits the advances of the PC over the console here. Even here where Nividia boss admits that, "No longer possible" for consoles to have better graphics than a PC.
It isn't just about the graphics though; it's about the gameplay and game diversity. There is a plethora of gaming possibilities for a PC, while consoles only have limited options, because they only have what is released to them. Some aren't even backwards compatible, meaning they can't play earlier games in their series(like X-Box One can't play X-Box 360 games). A PC can play any game made for a PC. You can even make your own game if you know how(even though that can be difficult).
Now, as much as I have loved consoles, I've always been a PC gamer, because I could just get whatever games I wanted for my PC. I'd always wanted consoles when they came out, but they were too expensive for me, along with their games. I've also found playing on a PC to be easier for me. The complain I have with consoles now though, isn't necessarily with graphics, or even their processing power(although they really should be more advanced), it's with the lack of creativity, and how they keep rehashing the same ideas through different games, and how they're seemingly held back in comparison with computer gaming.
There are so many more options for a computer, and I'd like to see the consoles start to step up their game. I don't think they're going to seriously do that for a while, because making money while you're able to be lazy is easy, but I certainly hope that in the future, new faces take over the gaming industries and take them towards better directions for games, and for gamers.
Game Design: Game Variation and Reliance on Similar Game Models
One of the differences I have personally noticed between gaming over 10 years ago, and gaming now, is the lack of variation amongst games. What I'm talking about, is how back in the day, there seemed to be less fear of failure in the gaming industry, because video games were still a relatively new thing, and they could take more risks, because even if your game sucked(Superman 64) and people hated it, they would still buy and play it, because it was a video game.
That isn't the case these days, and some of that is good; it means that a gaming company can no longer get away with selling something as horrible as Superman 64, but that doesn't mean they have to be creative anymore. One of the few exceptions of a game that was so horrible that it had to be gotten rid of, was E.T. way back in 1982, but that was very early on, and there haven't been many games that bad.
Since then however, I have noticed that games seem to settle for the mediocre. Sure we get some really good games every now and then, but for the most part, games seem like a copy of Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, or Halo. I've said this before I know, but it really does seem true. Games like Destiny, Titanfall, Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor(although I consider this to be better than many of the Assassin's Creed games), are all examples of games that have very similar game play and styling to already established and popular games.
Now, don't get me wrong, there are a ton of older games that are terrible, but the difference between them then and them now, is that developers were still learning and were throwing out lots of ideas; the gaming industry just seemed more free and creative, and sometimes they ended up with a bunch of games that sucked and made no sense, and other times they ended up with games that were pretty amazing, like Alien Versus Predator(1999), or a game series that makes Grand Theft Auto look like something for children, Postal(1997) and Postal 2(2003).
Part of the problem, a huge part, is that games just aren't that challenging anymore. They aren't hard. They walk you through practically everything and hold your hand while they show you exactly what to do and the only thinking you have to do is whom your going to shoot next. This could actually be an entire post in and of itself, just on how games are not nearly as challenging. Games used to be really hard. That's what made them even more rewarding when you beat them. More on that another time though, because that's just a part of the problem, even if it is a huge part.
Variation Within Video Games and Opinions goes into much of what I'm talking about, plus some. The author seems more positive than I though, with hopes of more variations of characters for the future, from different backgrounds. I'm not so sure though, and will believe it when it happens. Until then, we may just guess.
That isn't the case these days, and some of that is good; it means that a gaming company can no longer get away with selling something as horrible as Superman 64, but that doesn't mean they have to be creative anymore. One of the few exceptions of a game that was so horrible that it had to be gotten rid of, was E.T. way back in 1982, but that was very early on, and there haven't been many games that bad.
Since then however, I have noticed that games seem to settle for the mediocre. Sure we get some really good games every now and then, but for the most part, games seem like a copy of Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, or Halo. I've said this before I know, but it really does seem true. Games like Destiny, Titanfall, Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor(although I consider this to be better than many of the Assassin's Creed games), are all examples of games that have very similar game play and styling to already established and popular games.
Now, don't get me wrong, there are a ton of older games that are terrible, but the difference between them then and them now, is that developers were still learning and were throwing out lots of ideas; the gaming industry just seemed more free and creative, and sometimes they ended up with a bunch of games that sucked and made no sense, and other times they ended up with games that were pretty amazing, like Alien Versus Predator(1999), or a game series that makes Grand Theft Auto look like something for children, Postal(1997) and Postal 2(2003).
Part of the problem, a huge part, is that games just aren't that challenging anymore. They aren't hard. They walk you through practically everything and hold your hand while they show you exactly what to do and the only thinking you have to do is whom your going to shoot next. This could actually be an entire post in and of itself, just on how games are not nearly as challenging. Games used to be really hard. That's what made them even more rewarding when you beat them. More on that another time though, because that's just a part of the problem, even if it is a huge part.
Variation Within Video Games and Opinions goes into much of what I'm talking about, plus some. The author seems more positive than I though, with hopes of more variations of characters for the future, from different backgrounds. I'm not so sure though, and will believe it when it happens. Until then, we may just guess.
Game Design: DLC
In the more modern era of gaming, DLC's(Downloadable Content)have been becoming more and more normal. Some companies even seem to rely on this model for games; rather than releasing a game at once, they release portions of the game, and the player has to buy each portion separately.
Some consider this a way to make more money by making customers pay multiple times for one game, as opposed to releasing a game in its entirety and charging one price, as has been the norm since the beginning of gaming; others consider a DLC a way to get a part of a game earlier, and instead of having to wait, they get to play that portion and then wait till the next part comes out, so instead of having to wait a year or more, they get to play the game a lot sooner, just in pieces.
The Great DLC Controversy is a good article which explains some of what has been going on in the gaming world as far as DLC's are concerned. It goes through and names arguments by gamers, such as, "if it is available on release day, then it should be in the game." It also talks about one disc DLC, which is when a company releases a game on a disc, but the gamer has to purchase "content codes" to unlock content already on the disc. It even addresses Microtransactions, which could be talked about in another post almost; this practice is when there is a game(think of facebook games), and players can either play and upgrade their characters in a game, or they can purchase upgrades. What this does, is make it so that people who have been playing a game for even a year or so, can be outmatched by someone who's only been playing for a week, just because that other person bought a bunch of upgrades with real world money.
I've had this happen before. I played Marvel: Avengers Alliance on Facebook, and had my account for about a year or year and a half. I built up my characters without buying anything with real world money. I worked hard and upgraded, but no matter how much I would do that, or even if I were on a higher level, I could have a level 63 character, and go up against someone who had a level 12 character, and they'd easily beat me if they were just buying upgrades with real world money. What this does, is it takes away the integrity of playing the game, so that it's no longer about playing, but buying. It essentially ruins a game for anyone who wants to actually play it have real competition, but I digress.
The point with all this, is that the gaming industry, while it has always revolved around making money, is now very exclusively revolving around making a profit at the expense of customers and the games. It's why we don't have larger games coming out as often, or games that are outside of the norm quite as often; they're too risky, and are not worth it financially to the companies who put them out. That's why most first person shooters feel so similar, and why so many games coming out feel like they're another version of Halo, Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, or something we're all familiar with. Familiarity means safety, and safety guarantees a profit. Can a DLC have a place that is good and helpful for gamers? Yes. If a company wants to test out a new game and gauge its audience, that's when a DLC is perfect, for when they haven't developed the full game, but would like to see what their customers think. It opens them up for constructive criticism so that they can improve their game, and in the long run make more money. It lets them take a risk as well. That is not how most DLC's are used though, and they probably won't be used that way for the most part, not anytime soon.
Until people actually have enough and stop buying(which probably won't ever happen), companies like EA have no reason to improve and will just continue to ignore complaints because they'll be rolling in the money of those who are complaining.
Some consider this a way to make more money by making customers pay multiple times for one game, as opposed to releasing a game in its entirety and charging one price, as has been the norm since the beginning of gaming; others consider a DLC a way to get a part of a game earlier, and instead of having to wait, they get to play that portion and then wait till the next part comes out, so instead of having to wait a year or more, they get to play the game a lot sooner, just in pieces.
The Great DLC Controversy is a good article which explains some of what has been going on in the gaming world as far as DLC's are concerned. It goes through and names arguments by gamers, such as, "if it is available on release day, then it should be in the game." It also talks about one disc DLC, which is when a company releases a game on a disc, but the gamer has to purchase "content codes" to unlock content already on the disc. It even addresses Microtransactions, which could be talked about in another post almost; this practice is when there is a game(think of facebook games), and players can either play and upgrade their characters in a game, or they can purchase upgrades. What this does, is make it so that people who have been playing a game for even a year or so, can be outmatched by someone who's only been playing for a week, just because that other person bought a bunch of upgrades with real world money.
I've had this happen before. I played Marvel: Avengers Alliance on Facebook, and had my account for about a year or year and a half. I built up my characters without buying anything with real world money. I worked hard and upgraded, but no matter how much I would do that, or even if I were on a higher level, I could have a level 63 character, and go up against someone who had a level 12 character, and they'd easily beat me if they were just buying upgrades with real world money. What this does, is it takes away the integrity of playing the game, so that it's no longer about playing, but buying. It essentially ruins a game for anyone who wants to actually play it have real competition, but I digress.
The point with all this, is that the gaming industry, while it has always revolved around making money, is now very exclusively revolving around making a profit at the expense of customers and the games. It's why we don't have larger games coming out as often, or games that are outside of the norm quite as often; they're too risky, and are not worth it financially to the companies who put them out. That's why most first person shooters feel so similar, and why so many games coming out feel like they're another version of Halo, Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, or something we're all familiar with. Familiarity means safety, and safety guarantees a profit. Can a DLC have a place that is good and helpful for gamers? Yes. If a company wants to test out a new game and gauge its audience, that's when a DLC is perfect, for when they haven't developed the full game, but would like to see what their customers think. It opens them up for constructive criticism so that they can improve their game, and in the long run make more money. It lets them take a risk as well. That is not how most DLC's are used though, and they probably won't be used that way for the most part, not anytime soon.
Until people actually have enough and stop buying(which probably won't ever happen), companies like EA have no reason to improve and will just continue to ignore complaints because they'll be rolling in the money of those who are complaining.
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Advertising and Imagery: Century of the Self
The early 20th Century saw many developments that would shape the world as we know it today; the way war was fought was changed by the onslaught of World War I, the idea of an international community started to gain favor for the first time, countries were moving towards more industrialization and city dwelling as being a norm. One of the greatest onslaughts though, was the advent of the consumer culture. Men like Edward Bernays saw opportunity in creating a culture in which people would constantly want more things, regardless if they needed them. Opportunity was seen if they could get people to be as indulged in peace time, as they were during war. People ate up propaganda during war, so why not do the same thing with them during peace? The question was how though.
Edward Bernays solved that how, and started having companies make their products less about function, and more about glamour. Making people want something even if they didn't need it, because it would make them feel better. It was this consumerism though, that helped lead to The Great Depression. While Americans were enjoying the prosperity of the 1920s, it eventually became too much, and when the Stock Market Crash of 1929 hit, people stopped buying unnecessary goods once again. As devastating as this was though, it didn't stop the industries, or Edward Bernays for that matter. Eventually, consumerism came again, this time to stay.
The United States was no longer a nation of citizens, but a nation of consumers; government, and especially businesses looked to sell them things. Not things they needed, but things they wanted. Bernays was largely responsible for this influence. He'd shown marketers how to advertise their products to people in such a way that people no longer were basing their purchasing on needs, but on desire. He transformed America into a country where people's desires were "fulfilled", yet controlled at the same time. The thing is, the consumer would never be fulfilled, because they would always be left with the want for more, and this is what would keep the market going. Manufacturers at first thought that they would run out of products to sell and/or that people would lose interest in continually buying things they didn't need, but they were incorrect. What they didn't realize is that people always want more, and that is something Bernays saw, something he took full advantage of.
Edward Bernays solved that how, and started having companies make their products less about function, and more about glamour. Making people want something even if they didn't need it, because it would make them feel better. It was this consumerism though, that helped lead to The Great Depression. While Americans were enjoying the prosperity of the 1920s, it eventually became too much, and when the Stock Market Crash of 1929 hit, people stopped buying unnecessary goods once again. As devastating as this was though, it didn't stop the industries, or Edward Bernays for that matter. Eventually, consumerism came again, this time to stay.
The United States was no longer a nation of citizens, but a nation of consumers; government, and especially businesses looked to sell them things. Not things they needed, but things they wanted. Bernays was largely responsible for this influence. He'd shown marketers how to advertise their products to people in such a way that people no longer were basing their purchasing on needs, but on desire. He transformed America into a country where people's desires were "fulfilled", yet controlled at the same time. The thing is, the consumer would never be fulfilled, because they would always be left with the want for more, and this is what would keep the market going. Manufacturers at first thought that they would run out of products to sell and/or that people would lose interest in continually buying things they didn't need, but they were incorrect. What they didn't realize is that people always want more, and that is something Bernays saw, something he took full advantage of.
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Game Design: Academic Resources
The six sources I found all had something in which games were tested with students, or teachers talked about games and their students, all relating to language arts.
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?sid=0f9e230b-c404-4e15-b560-0af106818705%40sessionmgr4004&vid=0&hid=4109&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=20430351
"Using Theater Games to Enhance Language Arts Learning", was the first one I looked at. What was done was different types of games were used in order to find out what ones students learned from most. Some were more visual while others were more verbal, as to test out different areas. All the games were theater games, so students were actively involved in each
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?sid=0f9e230b-c404-4e15-b560-0af106818705%40sessionmgr4004&vid=0&hid=4109&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=20430351
"Using Theater Games to Enhance Language Arts Learning", was the first one I looked at. What was done was different types of games were used in order to find out what ones students learned from most. Some were more visual while others were more verbal, as to test out different areas. All the games were theater games, so students were actively involved in each
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=e207e8b9-f0cc-458b-a2a9-1cb3a25aab05%40sessionmgr4005&vid=1&hid=4109
"Promoting Language Arts Through Vocabulary Development with Internet Resources in the Elementary Classroom", had students use electronic games for learning vocabulary, rather than traditional school methods; they used, "hands-on-learning", and found that it was more effective than traditional methods of learning vocabulary.
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=3e4f1979-c0e5-4162-89cb-7ed9729a3b08%40sessionmgr4003&vid=1&hid=4109
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=3e4f1979-c0e5-4162-89cb-7ed9729a3b08%40sessionmgr4003&vid=1&hid=4109
"The Games Children Play" had children do learning games with parents and such at home, and found that students who did not participate at home, were outperformed by those who did, and that the games had helped those students who had played them at home.
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=19b0cf37-1bed-4523-b903-49a2044753ab%40sessionmgr4003&vid=1&hid=4109
"Fighting baddies and collecting bananas: teacher's perceptions of games-based literacy learning" was about teacher's opinions on using games in their curriculums, and found that while many teachers do want to do this, problems of budget, perceived lack of administrative support, and even fear that colleagues would not approve, usually keep teachers from incorporating games into their students' learning experiences, limiting their students to traditional methods, not all of which actually help students learn.
http://www.itu.dk/people/jrbe/DMOK/Artikler/Computer%20games%20and%20learning%202006.pdf
"Computer Games and Learning: Digital Game-Based Learning" explores video games as being more than just entertainment in our digital age, and why they are good sources for education as well. One of the strongest arguments in this article, is that newer generations are "digital natives", people who are already used to doing most things over a digital medium, so it's not really a leap to learn through a video game, as much as it might be to learn through a more traditional method.
http://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/04/53/PDF/kirriemuir-j-2004-r8.pdf
http://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/19/04/53/PDF/kirriemuir-j-2004-r8.pdf
"Literature Review in Games and Learning" recognizes the importance of video games in the lives of children and in our culture as a whole, explores contemporary games for leisure as well as developing educational games for children, as well as the failings of educational games that have come out so far. It admits that while interesting, using video games in classes is also challenging, considering the unorthodoxy of the medium in classroom settings; the article even goes so far as to discuss the future of games in the classroom as well. It's a pretty long article, thirty-seven pages, but is quite detailed.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Comm 344: Female Game Characters
In our modern age, one would think that having female characters as main, playable characters, would be fairly common; unfortunately though, for all the social progress that has been made, games are very strongly a man's world still. Nearly every game character is male, which, to be fair, is the demographic that is being marketed to, however, there has been a growing female presence in gaming, and with all the games out there, you'd think that there would be plenty of options for playing as a female character. Instead, there's a plethora of male characters, to the point that they are many times similar to male characters of other games.
This to the point, to where in games like Assassin's Creed, the multiplayer characters are just different versions of the same male character. The Mary Sue points out that Ubisoft originally intended to create a female character to play as, but decided to go with different clothing swatches for the male character, because it was easier. Ubisoft claimed they would have had to create separate movement systems for a female character, however, The Mary Sue points out that they could have used the same engine for the character for movement, or similar; or even that they could have made the main character a female, which, in a game about the French Revolution, would be revolutionary in the gaming industry, considering that one of the only famous playable characters in said industry is Laura Croft in Tomb Raider. There have been several Assassin's Creed games already, so making the main character a female in this one might not have been a huge risk, considering their loyal fan base, and the people in might draw in. It wouldn't be all that different from the series either, considering that the series has female assassins already. It just seems like laziness or playing it safe of Ubisoft's part.
The Flounce cites Jonathan Cooper from Naughty Dog, a big name animation directer, who on twitter, said, "Man, if I had a dollar for every time someone at Ubisoft tried to bullshit me on animation tech ;-)". I feel as though if other animators are calling out Ubisoft for this, that there is clearly a case to be made.
Whether or not Ubisoft decides to respond to these criticisms by actually creating female characters as playable or even main characters, remains to be seen, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence for that so far. Perhaps some other company will be more innovative and decide to do something different? Only time will tell...
This to the point, to where in games like Assassin's Creed, the multiplayer characters are just different versions of the same male character. The Mary Sue points out that Ubisoft originally intended to create a female character to play as, but decided to go with different clothing swatches for the male character, because it was easier. Ubisoft claimed they would have had to create separate movement systems for a female character, however, The Mary Sue points out that they could have used the same engine for the character for movement, or similar; or even that they could have made the main character a female, which, in a game about the French Revolution, would be revolutionary in the gaming industry, considering that one of the only famous playable characters in said industry is Laura Croft in Tomb Raider. There have been several Assassin's Creed games already, so making the main character a female in this one might not have been a huge risk, considering their loyal fan base, and the people in might draw in. It wouldn't be all that different from the series either, considering that the series has female assassins already. It just seems like laziness or playing it safe of Ubisoft's part.
The Flounce cites Jonathan Cooper from Naughty Dog, a big name animation directer, who on twitter, said, "Man, if I had a dollar for every time someone at Ubisoft tried to bullshit me on animation tech ;-)". I feel as though if other animators are calling out Ubisoft for this, that there is clearly a case to be made.
Whether or not Ubisoft decides to respond to these criticisms by actually creating female characters as playable or even main characters, remains to be seen, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence for that so far. Perhaps some other company will be more innovative and decide to do something different? Only time will tell...
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Comm 344: Game Design Topic
Over the years, the gaming industry has changed. Some changes have been good and others have been bad, but as time goes on, games evolve and so do our tastes for them, as well as the way they are made and how they are presented to us. I'd like to look at both the good and the bad in the industry; how interactive gaming and less limitation has improved games and gaming, while DLCs and character models have put a bad flavor in the mouths of gamers.
Games have picked up from when the vast majority were sidescrollers, and have become more interactive in dynamic in certain aspects. We are able to do more with games, although that does not always mean that companies take advantage of these options. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is a perfect example of an older game that has much more gamer interaction with the world than many games of today. When other interactive games are looked at, such as the Assassin's Creed series, they are interactive, but in a more...stale way. They seem a bit more structured and less creative. This isn't to say that all modern games are like this. Games like Bioshock Infinite incorporated first person shooter and interactive gaming to a balanced level of creativity.
An example of a game that couldn't have been done in the older days of gaming is Minecraft; the game is incredibly large, and has many, many options for what the player may choose to do. The world is roughly 8 times the scale of the Earth...something that would have been very difficult to do on an older system.
A more modern concept though, the DLC, is one that is mostly for the companies to make more money(so it seems)by releasing a game piece by piece, making someone pay more than what they would normally pay for if they bought a whole game at once. This wasn't done, at least not to nearly the same scale, in the gaming industry years ago; it would have been unheard of(I would think)to release a game that wasn't complete, and release pieces of it one at a time for the consumer.
As far as character models go, one thing that hasn't improved, and might have actually gotten worse, is that most game characters, especially the main characters, are not that diverse. As far as character design goes, they have different looks, but there are so few female characters, or non-white characters. Now, I'm not one to normally complain about this, I think in many mediums, like movies, they cater to what they think is their target audience; that being said, we get excuses from the makers of the latest Assassin's Creed game, saying that it would be too much work to render a female character to play as...which is absurd. They make tons of money, and it really just sounds like laziness. I'm sure that there are some technicalities, but surely they could make at least one female character for the game to play as, especially since they already have character models from previous games.
I'm sure there's much more to these things than what I'm just seeing at the moment, but after further research, these articles will be more fine tuned.
Games have picked up from when the vast majority were sidescrollers, and have become more interactive in dynamic in certain aspects. We are able to do more with games, although that does not always mean that companies take advantage of these options. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is a perfect example of an older game that has much more gamer interaction with the world than many games of today. When other interactive games are looked at, such as the Assassin's Creed series, they are interactive, but in a more...stale way. They seem a bit more structured and less creative. This isn't to say that all modern games are like this. Games like Bioshock Infinite incorporated first person shooter and interactive gaming to a balanced level of creativity.
An example of a game that couldn't have been done in the older days of gaming is Minecraft; the game is incredibly large, and has many, many options for what the player may choose to do. The world is roughly 8 times the scale of the Earth...something that would have been very difficult to do on an older system.
A more modern concept though, the DLC, is one that is mostly for the companies to make more money(so it seems)by releasing a game piece by piece, making someone pay more than what they would normally pay for if they bought a whole game at once. This wasn't done, at least not to nearly the same scale, in the gaming industry years ago; it would have been unheard of(I would think)to release a game that wasn't complete, and release pieces of it one at a time for the consumer.
As far as character models go, one thing that hasn't improved, and might have actually gotten worse, is that most game characters, especially the main characters, are not that diverse. As far as character design goes, they have different looks, but there are so few female characters, or non-white characters. Now, I'm not one to normally complain about this, I think in many mediums, like movies, they cater to what they think is their target audience; that being said, we get excuses from the makers of the latest Assassin's Creed game, saying that it would be too much work to render a female character to play as...which is absurd. They make tons of money, and it really just sounds like laziness. I'm sure that there are some technicalities, but surely they could make at least one female character for the game to play as, especially since they already have character models from previous games.
I'm sure there's much more to these things than what I'm just seeing at the moment, but after further research, these articles will be more fine tuned.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Comm 406: The Pursuaders
In our modern era of consumerism, advertising has become such a part of normal, everyday life, that for many, it has become an inconvenience, and others, just another part of media that they don't even think about. American culture has become saturated with advertising to the point that it has taken the place of natural culture, and created an entirely new one for our now consumer nation.
In the Frontline documentary, The Pursuaders, we are given a glimpse into the inside culture of advertising. We are shown how it has changed over the years, that rather than a product having to be advertised as good, because now all products perform their functions(so there is no longer a need to advertise that a product makes something "whiter" or "cleaner"), they are advertised for how they make people feel.
Nike shoes make you feel faster and stronger; iPods make you feel as though you have your own personal soundtrack; cleaning products make you feel clean. In other words, these products are no longer marketed for their function, but what they do for you, how they make you feel, and what you can accomplish with them. Through this new form of advertising, it has created cultures around brands and products, loyalties by consumers to certain companies and brands, regardless of whether or not their competition is making a nearly identical product.
The problem with all this advertising though, is that it's all become clutter. There's just so many advertisements, that none of it means anything, and in order to stand out, advertisers have to create an ad that jumps out at the consumer and is different from all the clutter; what this does though, is create more ads, and adds to the clutter, thus continuing the cycle.
Since advertising has become a lot of clutter, it has started to near its peak, and many, many people, are avoiding advertising now, as much as they can. No matter how hard advertisers work to get their ads out, more and more people are getting things like ad block, or just downloading media(many times illegally)without having to go through traditional mediums.
While The Pursuaders is a bit dated, much of what it was about is still relevant, and it is interesting to see what people's ideas were about what the future of advertising would be. Since the documentary was made, it seems that advertising has become less popular as far as public demand, and whenever people get the chance, they avoid advertising. Although TiVo really isn't much of a thing like it was when the documentary was made, people have made other substitutes. Cable TV was originally started as being "commercial free", but now it has more commercials than regular Television, which may be one of the reasons as to why cable hasn't been making as much money as it used to. People are going to the internet for their media, and even avoiding internet sites that have excessive ads, or they are installing ad block to get rid of internet ads. If anything, advertising now causes many people(maybe even most)to be turned off to a product, especially when that product is something as well known as Coca-Cola.
The age of feel-good advertising may be coming to an end; it's still a battle though, one that advertisers are still fighting, as more people avoid advertising, and less are reached by it. Where the advertising game will go and what advertisers will do in the face of this adversity, will be interesting to observe; for the time being though, it looks as if advertisers have an up hill battle in winning the public's favor again.
In the Frontline documentary, The Pursuaders, we are given a glimpse into the inside culture of advertising. We are shown how it has changed over the years, that rather than a product having to be advertised as good, because now all products perform their functions(so there is no longer a need to advertise that a product makes something "whiter" or "cleaner"), they are advertised for how they make people feel.
Nike shoes make you feel faster and stronger; iPods make you feel as though you have your own personal soundtrack; cleaning products make you feel clean. In other words, these products are no longer marketed for their function, but what they do for you, how they make you feel, and what you can accomplish with them. Through this new form of advertising, it has created cultures around brands and products, loyalties by consumers to certain companies and brands, regardless of whether or not their competition is making a nearly identical product.
The problem with all this advertising though, is that it's all become clutter. There's just so many advertisements, that none of it means anything, and in order to stand out, advertisers have to create an ad that jumps out at the consumer and is different from all the clutter; what this does though, is create more ads, and adds to the clutter, thus continuing the cycle.
Since advertising has become a lot of clutter, it has started to near its peak, and many, many people, are avoiding advertising now, as much as they can. No matter how hard advertisers work to get their ads out, more and more people are getting things like ad block, or just downloading media(many times illegally)without having to go through traditional mediums.
While The Pursuaders is a bit dated, much of what it was about is still relevant, and it is interesting to see what people's ideas were about what the future of advertising would be. Since the documentary was made, it seems that advertising has become less popular as far as public demand, and whenever people get the chance, they avoid advertising. Although TiVo really isn't much of a thing like it was when the documentary was made, people have made other substitutes. Cable TV was originally started as being "commercial free", but now it has more commercials than regular Television, which may be one of the reasons as to why cable hasn't been making as much money as it used to. People are going to the internet for their media, and even avoiding internet sites that have excessive ads, or they are installing ad block to get rid of internet ads. If anything, advertising now causes many people(maybe even most)to be turned off to a product, especially when that product is something as well known as Coca-Cola.
The age of feel-good advertising may be coming to an end; it's still a battle though, one that advertisers are still fighting, as more people avoid advertising, and less are reached by it. Where the advertising game will go and what advertisers will do in the face of this adversity, will be interesting to observe; for the time being though, it looks as if advertisers have an up hill battle in winning the public's favor again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)